Is Europe’s Biodiesel Industry in Jeopardy?
Europe’s $13 billion biodiesel industry could be in jeopardy according to an article published by Reuters that claims that the European Union (EU) plans to tackle unwanted side effects of biofuel production. The turn-about in support of biodiesel has been in part spurred by fear over climate change and several recent papers leaked from the European Commission that purport that biodiesel’s indirect impacts cancel out the majority of its benefits.
As the EU looks to increase current biodiesel use from 3 percent to 10 percent by 2020, they are also concerned that such a move would increase environmental damage rather than reduce environmental concerns. Their own analysis concludes that a 10 percent biodiesel mandate could lead to “an indirect one-off release of around 1,000 megatonnes of carbon dioxide — more than twice the annual emissions of Germany.” In addition, one report concludes that more use of biofuels could “squeeze food supplies and increase global hunger.”
The studies to which Reuters is referring have not been released by the European Commission and the authors surmise it is because it would “have significant implications for the existing EU biodiesel industry.”
These negative impacts could include a reduction of investments in plants and infrastructure. It could also cause a reduction of biodiesel use, rather than what the country has been aiming for since 2003, an increase in biodiesel use.
One of the biggest concerns with increased biofuels use is indirect land use change (ILUC) a proposed theory that the pro-biofuels groups have been trying to fight for several years. The ILUC argues that more biofuel production (tied to biofuel mandates) will cause trees to be cut down in other areas, increasing carbon and if the crop competes for “food” causing hunger in other areas of the world. In other words, the “indirect effects” of biofuel production outweigh the positive benefits of the fuel.
“The land use change effects make nearly half of the expected gains of shifting from fossil fuels to renewable biofuels disappear,” said a third report by the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) for the EU.
A fourth leaked document concluded biodiesel from Asian palm oil, South American soy beans, and EU rapeseed all had a bigger overall climate impact than conventional diesel.
The hope of the European biodiesel industry is that since the science is still young and inconclusive, the country should not pass legislation based on its deductions and theories.
This entire story reads like a “biodiesel conspiracy” theory- and who doesn’t love a little drama? It will be interesting to see if the as-of-now unreleased reports will in fact be released by the EU, and if so, what type of tail-spin the reports could cause.
5 Comments
Frank Walter
Good reporting Joanna. Will be interesting to see what Europe does on this issue.
Alexander
Taking in account the current level of science and industry, it is better to treat “biodiesel” as an ordinary BUBBLE! The WWW is full of articles about ” back-yard made bio-fuel”but I failed to find the “total cost” of biodiesel, that Mankind and the Earth must pay. I am afraid, that the total price is still higher than the price of ordinary fuel. Instead of creating megatonns of additional CO2 from Ethanol production, the governments and business must find money for further research and prototyping!
Fuel from algae looks much better, but this technology is also still on the way from the laboratory to the industrial scale production.
Biomass Demand in Europe to Reach 44% by 2020 - Domestic Fuel
[...] demand will reach 44% between 2010 and 2020. This increase in biomass need will be spurred by renewable energy policy. The majority of the biomass will be used in the energy sector, but will also be used in industrial [...]
Roman
Food vs. fuel – it is very sad that this “discussion” is still taking place. It is sad that biofuels have become the scape goat of the social and economic problems that create hunger, when in fact, biofuels have improved agricultural practices, increased agricultural outputs and added jobs (people with money can buy food and don’t starve). Before biofuels, governments in the US and EU subsidized farmers “not to plant and grow crops” to keep prices up. Some of these subsidies are still around.
Some groups like to point to some unethical practices and “throw the baby out with the bathwater”. Again, I am sad to report to you that all industries and governments have a small minority that is not quite as ethical as we would like. We must work to solve that problem. Biodiesel consumes about 5% of all vegetable oils and fats. Great Palm plantations have beed grown in Malaysia and Indonesia to satisfy the food industries in India and China, only a small amount is used for biofuels. The food use of oil is driving more plantations, you can choose to try to keep people from eating or you can try to implement better agricultural practices. The biofuels industry will help with the better agricultural practices.
ILUC – actual data over the last few years clearly shows that a dramatic increase in biofuels production has not caused any indirect land use change. I am afraid that the model is missing some parameters and has some wrong assumptions, it does not fit current data. As a scientist, I would recommend that other scientist look at the data and work from that. It looks like some groups are looking at the model and their “common sense” and ignoring the data.
Lastly, as you compare the overall effects of petroleum and biofuels, make sure you look at the future, the harder to extract oils (Canada Tar sands, or oil from shale formations, or deep water for example) look at the overall energy balance, health effects, pollution, potential spills (ah, most biofuels are non-toxic and biodegradable). I would also include the Middle East war cost, but that is up to you. Having said that, petroleum and biofuels will coexist for decades, since if we use more biofuels, petroleum will last much longer.
Charles J
Let’s remember this is a “proposed theory” and not even a theory with any facts to back it up. 2. Unlike ethanol biodiesel does not depend heavily on food plants. 3. both ethanol and biodiesel can be produced using non-food based plants. 4. If waste oil is used then the carbon neutral effect is 100%. 5. This argument is moot when agroecology like permaculture and crop mixing is implemented. The producers of biodiesel in developing countries could produce more food, plant more barren land and get fuel all in one.
Comments RSS feed —